The new Penryn dual core almost matches the current Quad Core Q6800EE Extreme for performance.
The Penryn Quad substancially exceeds it.
Here you can see its CPU limited with both revisions topping out at 210fps. The current Quad Core Q6800EE manages only 153 fps. 57fps behind the new cores.
The new Penryn dual core almost matches the current Quad Core Q6800EE Extreme for performance.
The Penryn Quad substancially exceeds it.
Thats a limited handfull of cherry picked benches. Plus they don't take into account the clock difference, which might not seem like much but is like 12%(too lazy to calculate)
Enough industry insiders around the net have allegedly said AMD has no answer until mid 2008 to have me convinced, and they know better than you and I. I used to have AMD myself, bought nothing else for 7 years until I got a C2D. Theres nothing to be gained from burying your head in the sand and being a fanboy. I leave it to the experts to tell me whats fastest.
If AMD can regain and hold a lead over Intel then I'll be delighted. Can't see it happening though as Intel have a definite advantage that AMD seemingly can't match. Intel also have 33nm and 22nm dies allegedly working and die shrinks allow for faster speeds so it is significant.
As for cherry picked benches, i'd call benching with:
3D Mark 06 - General Test
3D Mark 06 - CPU Test
DivX 6.6
Mainconcept H.264 Encoder
Cinebench R.9.5
Cinebench R.10
Half Life 2 Lost Coast
A fair spread of tests that cover virtually all common scenarios including artifical 3D benchmarks, actual gaming, video and sound encoding.
Enough industry insiders around the net have allegedly said AMD has no answer until mid 2008 to have me convinced, and they know better than you and I. I used to have AMD myself, bought nothing else for 7 years until I got a C2D. Theres nothing to be gained from burying your head in the sand and being a fanboy. I leave it to the experts to tell me whats fastest.
If AMD can regain and hold a lead over Intel then I'll be delighted. Can't see it happening though as Intel have a definite advantage that AMD can't match. Intel aslo have 33nm and 22nm dies allegedly working and die shrinks allow for faster speeds so it is significant.
I'm not being a fanboy, I'm just not ready to beleiev AMD is just going to roll over and die for another year, especially when barc is make or break for them. I will also not hand the performance crown from one yet to be seen processor, to another imaganiary processor furtehr down the road without any reall benches.
Enough industry insiders around the net have allegedly said AMD has no answer until mid 2008 to have me convinced, and they know better than you and I. I used to have AMD myself, bought nothing else for 7 years until I got a C2D. Theres nothing to be gained from burying your head in the sand and being a fanboy. I leave it to the experts to tell me whats fastest.
If AMD can regain and hold a lead over Intel then I'll be delighted. Can't see it happening though as Intel have a definite advantage that AMD seemingly can't match. Intel also have 33nm and 22nm dies allegedly working and die shrinks allow for faster speeds so it is significant.
Who are those "industry insiders" you're referring to? True, I've heard too that AMD is in really tight spot right now but like corvette says, NOT releasing Barc is do or die for them really. It is not to our/anyone's advantage to have a market dominated solely by an Intel entity because of many potential "market-side negative effects," which you, I, and everyone else would pay for, trust me! Our friend Baron can attest to that, although I haven't seen him around lately.
Seriously though, we have to hope that AMD comes back at least competitively, with a product to Intel's penryn core as such will keep prices low, but above all, will keep the innovation on both ends of the rope.
The industry insiders are just many of the tech experts around the net. There have been lots of articles on the C2D lead.
As for it being advantageous for both companies to have competitive products, I agree entirely, its that that forces development and keeps the prices low. Like I said above, I'm not a fanboy of either company, I just go with whoever is fastest at the time I'm looking to buy, although it does take a big advantage to make me change mobo as well as processor.
I agree with others who brought to light since this was a budget gaming system where pennies count, the Intel system does not require expensive memory like AMD does to game or even to overclock.
Using cheaper 533MHz DDR2 alone would have saved about $70 or so, making the Intel system cheaper...
That is the main complaint I see with the article, lastly it would be that you did not include temps or power draw measurements from each system.
Good job, and I hope your still open for comments...
Rich...
Quote :
When you take into account that it's one of Intel's lowest performing C2D chips vs. AMD's second fastest chip....not so impressive. If you throw in OCing, AMD has no chance. Since their comparing on a price basis, i'd like to see them put in cheaper DDR2-533(both setups).
[quote="SIRKILLALOT
sorry that i was not in a good mood last night. it was 5am, i just got off work, and my gf was being a little bit annoying. i apologize to you for my behavior
No problem it takes a man to say hes sorry,
a bigger man would admit AMD is better, but we wont go there have a good sleep
later.
ps. i changed the title
The thing is that not everybody who buys a new CPU wants to overclock. A person who wants something decent and cheap would find AMD an attractive option. The E6300 and E6400 are no slouches at stock, but if I was going to use Core 2 Duo with no overclocking intentions I would buy nothing less than the E6600 model.
Which the E6600 model only needs cheaper DDR2 533 RAM, but AMD would need their X2-6000 using low latency much more expensive DDR2 800 RAM... which would make AMD more costly with no headroom for overclocking...
what amuses me more are the folks who a year ago were shouting that AMD is the biggest best and can never be beat.
What this goes to show is that at any given point in the CPU world, the "title" of fastest CPU on the market can go back and forth. This is the brilliance of competition. Both these companies continuosly are pushing eachother to come out with faster and better CPU's in order not to be left in the dust.
In the end, as I've stated many times, No matter which CPU you go with, you will be getting one hell of a performing CPU. Both AMD and Intel have extremely competitive products that not only meet the demands of the majority of the world, but far surpas them in many ways.
What we are going for now is not, who can run the average stuff better, but who can absolutely demolish the average stuff the fastest. While I would claim that 3/4's of the computer users in this world never need the performance either AMD or intel offers, it is the remaining 1/4's of us who are continuosly screaming "FASTER! FASTER!!!!!".
Buy the CPU you want and that you prefer. Unless you're going for a bigger E-dick size, either CPU manufacturer will provide you a CPU that will do everything you throw at it. it might take 1 second slower than the other CPU, But hey, not all of us need to be on the bleeding edge
Well, AMD doesn't have the OC'n headroom as Intel and I'm pretty sure that article pre-dated Intel's latest round of price drops. As far as I'm concerned that article is pretty worthless... and I wouldn't be surprised if the author had a hidden pro-AMD agenda when he wrote it.
lolz... you just posted a series of gaming benchmarks between two low price processors... and you called this "more victories than Intel"? not to mention that they benchmarked most of their games on 1600 x 1200 setting.
also on the side note, ppl who are going to buy E6300 / X2 5600+ isn't going to shell out another 500 bucks in buying an 8800 GTX, another 200 bucks in DDR2 1000, and another 200 bucks for a 680 board. if they are really looking for a cheaper yet better system, they should've used cheaper components, as 1Tanker said, DDR2 533.
i'm really trying not to be a fanboy here, but i really wonder why they used Zalman cooler for AMD, while only Intel factory fan for Intel? oh well, not like its going to matter.
not everyone likes to play at higher res than 2024 xwho knows how many resolution sire....
but we wont go there 
